Just finished reading an Economist article on education or the lack thereof in high schools. They are not picking on US high school but instead used an example of the short comings in England schools. I am older so definitely we were taught in a different manner. Learning vowels in grade or grammar school was a big deal. One of my short comings which I slowly picked up later in life. The topic and problems of education becomes clearer in the Economist article “The trial of Lucy Letby has shocked British statisticians.” Apparently, there are issues in understanding math in the form of stats. In this particular instance, rotas were shown detailing a particular nurse was on duty when people were killed. Of course, a non-expert would then say:
Topics:
Bill Haskell considers the following as important: Education
This could be interesting, too:
Joel Eissenberg writes Economic stress in higher education
Angry Bear writes A Brief on the Economics of Water Usage
Angry Bear writes Policy Wins in 2024 for Wetland Protection
Bill Haskell writes Immigration to The United States. Just how Bad is It?
Just finished reading an Economist article on education or the lack thereof in high schools. They are not picking on US high school but instead used an example of the short comings in England schools. I am older so definitely we were taught in a different manner. Learning vowels in grade or grammar school was a big deal. One of my short comings which I slowly picked up later in life.
The topic and problems of education becomes clearer in the Economist article “The trial of Lucy Letby has shocked British statisticians.” Apparently, there are issues in understanding math in the form of stats. In this particular instance, rotas were shown detailing a particular nurse was on duty when people were killed. Of course, a non-expert would then say:
“You can’t possibly believe this could happen by chance. Therefore, she is guilty”.
The reasons why this logic is wrong are complex, are outlined in a booklet, and now on display on the Royal Statistical Society website. But suffice to say, the statisticians call this “painting the target around the arrow”.
In the Letby trial, a chart was used to show that she had been on duty when babies had died or collapsed unexpectedly; the jury was not told about other deaths for which she was not charged. The statistical weaknesses of this were not sufficiently pointed out. The result being the target was painted around the arrow. She was convicted.
Coincidentally being in one place where something occurred does not result in being guilty. The court, the jury, as well as others failed to grasp this logic. And of course, Lucy Letby was convicted. This is an issue in the US also.
In the Economist article, the author states . . .
“England has a problem with producing non-scientists—such as politicians or, say, lawyers in a murder case . . . those who can understand data. When it comes to this, says Sir Adrian Smith, the head of the Royal Society, Britain is “very bad” indeed.
“This is not a new diagnosis. In a 1959 lecture called “The Two Cultures”, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow warned that society was “being split into two polar groups”: those who understood science and those who did not. Worse, the bookish types did not even know what they did not know. Literary intellectuals smirk at the illiteracy of scientists but, Snow said, ask them to describe the second law of thermodynamics (“the scientific equivalent of ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’”) or even to define mass (“the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read?”) and the answer would be a “cold” negative.”
The problem as I read it being the education is not balanced enough to allow for each side to have a modicum of knowledge of the other side. Both are distances apart with no linkage between them.
It is on the educational side and I describe a non-technical side versus a technical side plus somewhat non-technical side. The later two have awareness and the former nontechnical side is unaware. And that is the question Britain cannot get right.
In 2010 the Nuffield Foundation (Economist), a think-tank, decided to test whether Britain was really so bad at offering educational breadth by comparing it with 24 other countries, mostly drawn from the OECD, a rich-country club. The schools in England had fewer than one in five students studying math after 16. In 18 of the countries more than half did. In another eight, everyone did. Government data suggests almost half of the working-age population in Britain have the numeracy skills of a primary school child.
Not all of Snow’s thesis has dated well. He over-emphasized scientific knowledge; having a scientifically literate population is actually less about knowing facts than having “an attitude of mind”, says Sir David Spiegelhalter, emeritus professor of statistics at Cambridge. But Snow’s analysis of English education still stands.
The solution is not to get everyone to do advanced math, it is too hard and not needed. Besides there are too few math teachers which is another issue to itself. As the Economist article states, a forthcoming Royal Society report argues, math and data analysis should be woven into all education up to 18. I would add, fine arts such as literature, etc. should be added to the other side. Something is certainly needed, for people in positions of authority not to have basic quantitative literacy is ‘unacceptable’ as well as a backing in literature and the fine arts. It is called balance.
It was not long after I left college when I was told by one high school student, he was only required to take one year of Math at his high school. To me, that is a short-coming for the student and he would suffer for it in the future.
The wheels started to spin in my head as to what could be the consequences of such learning. I had pursued a technical education in high school with three and 3-1/2 years of math, three years of science, besides 4 years of English, 2 Years of history, Wood Shop, Electric Shop, House Framing, and multiple years of drafting. I wanted to be an Engineer, which fell apart, as jobs were not there after I left college. Instead for work, I became an intuitive Global Supply Chain expert who could read a print, plan ocean shipments, set inventory levels for my warehouse, and do calculations. My knowledge steeped in numbers gave me great latitude.
Of course, I advised the high school student to take more math as it would be valuable to him later in life. It fell on deaf ears as it was not required, and he was joyful. Besides my dad teaching me how to lay brick, cement blocks, and mix mortar: I came away with a resilient background and ability to work anywhere.
The trial of Lucy Letby has shocked British statisticians, The Economist archive